While the gun-rights community is focused on the National Rifle Association-backed New York State Rifle and Pistol Association lawsuit (NYSRPA) challenging New Yorks Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act, a lesser-known complaint has also been filed that has both promise and controversy built in.

The case is Razzano v. Cuomo, filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York by Gabriel Razzano, individually and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, by attorneys Robert J. La Reddola and Steven M. Lester. Whats immediately noticeable in the brief is that the class members in the Razzano lawsuit include all persons who own long arms and are or may become ineligible to obtain or maintain a pistol license or own a newly defined Assault Weapon.

Razzano himself became ineligible after Rep. Carolyn McCarthys (D-NY 4th) office sicked the cops on him after an animated meeting over immigration issues, and they confiscated his legally registered weapons  nine rifles, 15 handguns, and his fiancées handgun. They revoked his pistol license three weeks later over his suitability.

In other words, an American citizen, with no criminal charges against him, no convictions, no mental health diagnoses, no adjudication of any kind, was stripped of his supposedly Second Amendment-guaranteed rights essentially because he exercised those promised in the First Amendment.

Those outrages lead to legal action in Razzano vs. County of Nassau (Razzano I). In that action, the court ordered the return of Razzanos long guns  which would normally be called a win.

However, after years of litigation, Razzano is still ineligible for a Nassau County pistol license, and thus under the SAFE Act, is subject to having all of his weapons confiscated, including hunting rifles and shotguns for self-defense in his home, which is the point of the current Razzano v. Cuomo lawsuit.

[T]here are many in New York State who, like Razzano, fail to meet the standard of local pistol administrators for non-criminal reasons, and are thus ineligible to possess a handgun license or are no longer a valid license holder, the second Razzano suit continues. Therefore, the SAFE Act promulgates the same unconstitutional policy rejected in Razzano I: the seizure of all legally-owned weapons without notice, administrative review or judicial finding.

That conclusion would seem borne out by the SAFE Act itself, which states, The Division of Criminal Justice Services, upon determining that an individual is ineligible to possess a license, or is no longer a valid license holder, shall notify the applicable licensing official of such determination and such licensing official shall not issue a license or revoke such license and any weapons owned or possessed by such individual shall be removed . Razzanos legal team filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to keep aspects of the SAFE law from going into effect on the April 15, 2014 deadline, but the District Court turned that motion down.

The judge said that this needs to be dealt with in the state court until I have been injured [having all my firearms taken away again], Razzano explained by email.

We will be bringing the state action forthwith and then return to federal court, Razzanos attorney Robert Redola promised. If Razzanos rights can be violated like this, might all gunowners be in danger? Let us hear your opinions in the comment section.

In the Marxist state of New York, besides cops, only the very wealthy, celebrities and politicians are allowed to practice their 2nd Amendment constitutional right which clearly states ‘shall not be infringed’...but democrats are for the middle class and the poor aren’t they. Robert De Niro has a license to carry, so does Howard Stern and Donald Trump even though the 3 of them can afford 24 armed guards and if they got licenses, you can bet a hell of lot of other celebrities and the rich do as well. If that state gets any more elitist they’ll be demanding the middle class and poor live underground while they live in the clouds.

WATKINS GLEN, Feb. 25 -- The Schuyler County Legislature's Public Safety / Criminal Justice Committee voted unanimously Monday morning in favor of a resolution opposing the State's passage of the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act -- a gun control law enacted on Jan. 15.

Nearly 50 people filed into the small confines of the Legislature chamber to support the resolution, which was crafted by Schuyler County Sheriff Bill Yessman and County Clerk Linda Compton (and can be found in its entirety here). The vote followed a brief presentation by Yessman, and drew applause from the audience.

"I told people there is no opposition (among Schuyler legislators) to this resolution," Yessman said before the meeting started, "and that they didn't need to be here. But ..." And he motioned to the crowd squeezing into the room. Committee Chairman Phil Barnes noted that petitions with 300 signatures opposing the SAFE Act have been received

6
posted on 04/19/2014 5:24:34 PM PDT
by Chode
(Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)

This is “The Widow of The Long Island RailRoad Shooting”, infamous for figuratively holding up her dead husband, when it comes to anything gun. This is the expert, who when shown a magazine from a rifle, could not decide if it is a clip or a magazine. She is the expert that thought a barrel shroud on an AR-type rifle, was a silencer.

She needs to go, Long Island.

FYI, that insane killer used a revolver for his deeds, and in turn, left my butt on the Bethpage train platform, freezing for hours, because his actions stopped all trains that snowy afternoon.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.